[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Map coordinate cleanups.

[Marco Colombo <marco@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Raimar Falke wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:47:28PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Raimar Falke wrote:
> >
> > > >  > Maybe it is time to decide which rule freeciv should follow. I would
> > > >  > vote for the extra {}s.
> >
> > Me too, for what it counts.
> > <noflames>
> > But I'm on the http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/v2.4/doc/CodingStyle.html
> > side, so I disagree with most of the "Mini Style Guide" section in
> > freeciv_hackers_guide.txt.
> > Well, only -i2 is real horror, to tell the truth.
> > </noflames>
>
> Indeed doesn't the "Mini Style Guide" cover the brace issue.

Let's say it this way: if you put additional braces, you'll never *need*
to remove them. On the converse, if you don't put them, one day you may
find you need to add them (putting a second statement inside the same loop).

Exceptions:
- one liner contructs:
        if (!ok) goto error;

[RATIONALE: a {} block suggests that something it's being done ]

- empty loop blocks:

        for(<init code>; <cond code>; <incr code>)
                ;

        or:

        for(<init code>; <cond code>; <incr code>)
                continue;

        (the latter being my favorite)

[ the same ]


> > Anyway, I'm not sure one should have my_* functions everytime something
> > useful isn't really portable... just my 0.02.
>
> Freeciv prefixes such cases with "my_" or "my" and I have also seen
> such prefixes in other code.

I admit it's a matter of taste. From a readability standpoint, if I
encounter a function called my_malloc(), I think that it's a non standard
function, a memory allocator. It can be from a simple wrapper around
system malloc(), to a more complex, completely different allocator.
But it's a *different* function.

If I see a my_ffs() function, I think it's somewhat different from the
ffs() I'm familiar with, and I wonder how and why. Instead, if I see
ffs(), I *know* what it does, and I don't wonder.

So, the rule is: in C source, call the same functions with the same names,
and use different names for different functions (and, slightly different
names for slightly different functions, like my_* variants). How the
`ffs' function name will lead to the actual implementation it's a
linker job, and the C compiler (and the C source human reader) should
not be concerned (well, not while compiling/reading the module that uses that
function).
I call that abstraction, too.

>
>       Raimar
>
>

.TM.
-- 
      ____/  ____/   /
     /      /       /                   Marco Colombo
    ___/  ___  /   /                  Technical Manager
   /          /   /                      ESI s.r.l.
 _____/ _____/  _/                     Colombo@xxxxxx